Editorial page editor Vincent Carroll argued that the use of marijuana at bars and other social settings will never be legal under Amendment 64. This is incorrect.

Carroll pointed to this language in Amendment 64: “Nothing in this section shall permit consumption that is conducted openly and publicly or in a manner that endangers others.” He interpreted this language to mean that Amendment 64 “explicitly bars public use.” To have that effect, the provision would read, “The open and public use of marijuana shall be prohibited.”

Amendment 64 carved out an exception to existing marijuana laws to make adult marijuana use legal. The provision Carroll cited simply clarifies that Amendment 64 does not — on its own — make open and public consumption legal across the board. Rather, it provides the state and each locality the ability to determine whether open and public use will be permitted.

Steve Fox, Bethesda, Md.

The writer is a co-lead drafter of Amendment 64 and is director of VS Strategies, a lobbying and public relations subsidiary of the Vicente Sederberg LLC law firm in Denver.

This letter was published in the May 29 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.